Re: Minimum Structural Complexity and Gap Distance - a clear relationship

On 28 Jun, 03:33, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:50 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I've given you my parameters Richard.

No you haven't. You have made vague assertions.

I recall being quite specific in my detailing of a hypothesis that is
quite open to potential falsification. Please do point out what was
so "vague" about the symmetry threshold specifications I listed?

Where you have lied is in claiming that you have carried through a
statistical study of granite which allows you to determine if a
granite object is produced by "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces.


Here's what I wrote:

"Any time you find a very high degree of reflexive symmetry in
exhibited in the material of granite, say, 10,000 irregularities on
one side of the block that vary by over 100% as measured from the
center of the block and yet match, within 0.00001%, *all* the opposing
irregularities on the other side of block, the artifactual nature of
the block would be clear - even if found on an alien planet without
any knowledge of any aliens occupying the planet. . . .


You claim to have made such a study.
Where is your dataset of measurements of granite objects?

Regarding granite, a surface irregularity is where not every
surface point is the same distance from the center of the stone. For
example, a perfectly round polished stone would have no surface
irregularities at all since every point on the surface would be the
same distance from the center of the stone. Or, another way to put it
is that every
surface point would be the same distance from the exactly opposing
surface point if there were no surface irregularities.


So how do you determine this *MATHEMATICALLY*. You claim that you have
applied your statistical method, yet you cannot produce any evidence
whatsoever that you have made a single measurement.

Now, for comparison, consider a highly symmetrical polished
granite cube. Such a cube has surface irregularities that are not the
same distance from the center of the cube nor are they the same
distance from exactly opposing surface points. Yet, each
"irregularity", in this case, exactly matches the irregularity on the
exact opposite side to within a very narrow threshold.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, that you are claiming to have a statistical method of determining
such things, that you have not made any measurements or any form of
statistical analysis, yet you claim to have done so.

The more irregular the
irregularities, while maintaining a very high degree of reflective
symmetry (or other forms of symmetry), the more confident one can be
that deliberate artifact was in play."

So how do you measure such irregularities?
You claim to have done so.
Which parameters did you measure?
How big is your dataset?
How have you established that your dataset is big enough to give the
statistical confidence you need?

What don't you understand about the concept or the listed
parameters? - a listed hypothesized threshold limitation that is
clearly open to potential falsification.


The "concept" is at best a vague description of a methodology
completely lacking any of the specific details you need to carry it
through.

You haven't listed any parameters. You have listed properties which a
measurement and analysis of parameters might show.

A "threshold limitation" is not a number plucked out of the air, but a
number reached by a statistical analysis of the dataset.


All you have to do is
provide a single example of such a degree of symmetry being produced
in the material of granite by any non-deliberate force of nature and
you falsify my position. And, by implication, you also put SETI
science on very shaky ground as well.

No, Sean. What you have to do it is to carry out the methodology you
claim to have carried out and demonstrate that it *can* make the
finding you claim for it.


What measurements have you made?

Probably very similar to the one's Howard Hershey has made which
caused even him to agree with me on this particular point. Not even
Bobby Bryant has come back to challenge this point.

I wasn't asking Howard Hershey of Bobby Bryant. I'm asking you. You
claim to have carried through your method, something which is
impossible without making measurements.

What measurements have *YOU* (Not Howard Hershey, Bobby Bryant or the
King of Spain, but *YOU*, Sean Pitman) made?



How many objects have your recorded?

The record is a record of my own experience with the material of
granite in particular - with which I've had many thousands of
encounters and observations of granite acted on by both deliberate and
non-deliberate forces. I dare say that you have had a similar set of
experiences with the material of granite, if not to a greater degree;
as has Howard Hershey. That is why at least Howard both knows and
admits that if my listed degree of symmetry were ever found exhibited
by a block of granite, no one with even our limited experience with
granite would reasonably doubt the artifactual nature of such a degree
of symmetry.

"a record of my own experience" is not a number, Sean. It's a vague
assertion.
You claim not only to have a methodology, but that you have applied
you methodology to granite. As you claim statistically significant
results from your method, you must in that case have made measurements
of a number of granite objects.

So how many objects have *YOU*, Sean Pitman, measured?



How big is your data set?

Is this just a different way of asking the very same question?

No it isn't. The size of the dataset is derived from the number of
objects measured, and the number of parameters measured on each of
those objects.


How have your recorded three-dimensional forms?

Via visual estimation mostly with a few direct measurements here and
there - plenty accurate enough to know that nothing that is produced
by non-deliberate natural processes comes remotely close to the degree
of symmetry I've outlined above.

For a statistical analysis you need numbers. How can you generate
numbers from a "visual estimation"?


They are quite falsifiable.

Parameters are not falsifiable. They are the framework which you use
to record your data.

A "parameter" is any of a set of physical properties whose values
determine the characteristics or behavior of something.

In a statistical analysis, which you claim to have done, they are what
you measure.

I've just
listed for you a set of physical properties for a chunk of granite
that define a fairly high degree of symmetry. Obviously, what is
falsifiable here is my hypothesis that this particular set of
parameters, as listed above, carries with it an extremely high degree
of predictive value when it comes to detecting deliberate manipulation
of the material of granite.


This is complete and utter nonsense. In a statistical analysis (which
you claim to have carried out) the parameters are what you measure.
They are dimensions,. angles and so on. You are asserting that unless
someone can falsify "length" (and not the length of any specific
object, but the concept of "length" itself) your "hypothesis" is
supported.


I can't believe I have to explain such seemingly obvious concepts?!

It's like having to explain the definition of "is" to former Pres.
Clinton . . .

That makes them a valid scientific hypothesis with potentially useful
predictive power. Can you falsify my parameters? - Yes or no?

Nobody can falsify parameters. They are the framework which you use to
record data.

Come on now Richard. What are you trying to do here? You *can*
falsify the hypothesis of mine that is supported by said
parameters . . . That's what make my hypothesis a valid scientific
position.


So how does one falsify "length"?



I am recording a large data set of measurements of plesiosaur
vertebral centra.
The parameters I use are dimensions, such as length, height and width,
and angles, such as the angular separation of ribs in the vertical
plane.

That's what parameters are.

Such parameters are meaningless unless they are used as part of the
basis of some sort of hypothesis Richard.

The parameters are what I measure. I test hypotheses against the
dataset of what I have measured.

You claim to have done a statistical analysis. Do you not understand
the difference between a parameter and the value of a parameter?

Demonstrate that your
parameters do not truly support your hypothesis and your hypothesis
fails.

How can "length" support an hypothesis?

Likewise, demonstrate that my parameters can be produced in
the material of granite by a non-deliberate force of nature and my
hypothesis fails.

What is at issue is not whether or not your hypothesis fails (which,
as you have not presented any hypothesis is a moot point in any case)
but whether or not you have carried through you *statistical* method
which you claim can distinguish between "deliberate" and "non-
deliberate" forces in the formation of granite objects.

1) You cannot define the parameters you claim to have measured, and
are confused as to the nature of parameters.
2) You are unable to produce any numeric data set at all, which is a
necessity for any form of statistical analysis.
3) You are unable to tell us the size of your sample, let alone how
you established that the sample size is large enough to provide
reliable statistical results.


So, to repeat my question:
What parameters are have you measured?

I just listed them above - degrees of surface irregularities in the
material of granite as measured from the center of the block compared
with irregularities on the exact opposite side of the block. I've
repeated this now several times for you. These are the parameters in
question that are used to measure the degree of symmetry with regard
to surface irregularities.

To carry out a statistical analysis you need numbers.
What number can you attach to "degree of surface irregularity" and how
to you measure it?


You claim that your method is statistical.
So either you can do statistical calculations without numbers -
something which would be remarkable in the extreme - or you have taken
a set of measurements which you can analyze statistically.

How many times do I have to list off the numbers for you?

Once would do.
So far you have not managed even that.

Check again
in the listing of my parameters and see if you don't recognize a few
numbers.

The numbers are what you get by measuring the parameters on a number
of granite objects.

"Length" is not a number.
33 is a number which gives the value of the parameter "length" on a
specific object in millimeters.
If I gather a lot of numbers which give the value of the parameter
"length" on a large number of objects I have a dataset.
I can then apply statistical analyses to that dataset.


Or you are lying.

Check the listing of my parameters again . . .

Listing parameters is at best part of the process of defining
methodology.
You claim to have carried through your methodology on granite objects,
and that you can determine statistically if a granite object is the
product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces from that
methodology.

I think you are lying, and that not only have you not carried through
your methodology, but that you lack the basic knowledge of statistics
which would allow you to do so. The fact that you confuse a parameter
with the value of that
parameter is a good clue to that.

< snip repetition >



If not, then why all this blather? Even Howard Hershey has agreed
that my parameters would support the hypothesis of intelligent design
when it comes to the material of granite. Why do you think this might
be the case? Even you begrudgingly admit it, but get all hung up on
lists that you yourself have roughly determined with your own
experience with the material of granite. That is why both you and
Howard are forced to admit that I'm almost certainly correct given my
parameters as stated. If you didn't already have a basic understanding
of the range of forms, with regard to symmetry, that could be produced
in the material of granite by non-deliberate natural processes, you
wouldn't have any basis to agree or disagree with me.

There's really nothing more to say - - game over. All you're doing
now is trying to save face I guess.

I'm not the one who needs to save face here, Sean.
You have lied.
I have not.

What does that tell us about the honesty which you boast about?

LOL - whatever . . . Those reading these series of posts will have to
judge for themselves. I've been as honest and straightforward with
you as I know how to be.

You claim to have carried through a methodology which can determine on
a *statistical* basis if a granite object is formed by "deliberate" or
"non-deliberate" forces.

Have you done so?
To do so you need to measure parameters on a large number of granite
objects.

Have you made any measurements?
What have you measured?
How have you measured it?


Yet, you desperately wish to paint me as an
underhanded dishonest good for nothing black hearted liar ; )

Sean, you could redeem that impression by telling us:
1) where is your data set?
2) Which parameters did you measure?
3) How big was your sample size?
4) What procedures did you use to ensure that your samples were
representative of the range of variation found in natural objects?
5) What measures did you use to determine the minimum size of sample
needed to provide accurate results?
6) How did you describe three-dimensional forms mathematically in a
way which allows statistical analysis to be carried out?
7) What statistical methods did you use to analyze your dataset?


Can you answer *any* of those questions?
Your repeated attempts to change the subject suggest that you can't.



It's
quite humerous actually . . . your need to paint not only the
arguments of your opponents in as black a light as possible, but their
characters and personalities as well.

I have identified very clearly an instance in which you have lied.
If you had done what you claim to have done, answering a few simple
questions could show that I am wrong in that identification.
You haven't done so.

So *I'm* not painting you in "as black a light as possible".

*You* are doing it to *yourself* by lying.

And if you are lying in this instance, how reliable are your claims to
honesty elsewhere?

RF


RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Minimum Structural Complexity and Gap Distance - a clear relationship
    ... exhibited in the material of granite, say, 10,000 irregularities on ... Where is your dataset of measurements of granite objects? ... Even if I did list of a bunch of measurements, ... To do statistics you need numbers, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kenneth Millers Interview with NOVA
    ... he has actually carried through his methodology on thousands of such ... methodology when encountering various granite forms as I use. ... There is no way of applying statistics without using numbers ... the activity of deliberate artifact - as would I and anyone else with ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Request for feedback on statistical method
    ... As I mentioned, I'll report back ... >> artifactual but am not a statistics expert. ... Thus, more recent measurements are ... > physical constant, after 6000 years of change, to suddenly stabilize ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: How many data points for statistical significant results?
    ... the minimum, maximum, mean of the measurements. ... The results have to be "statistically significant", ... My guess is to to provide the 5th percentile, ... statistics, so I think they would be looking for some guidance from me ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Roberts versus Lazio on "Overaveraging"
    ... but it is not valid science or statistics. ... > measurements below the resolution of the instrument used. ... the systematic errors involved, by averaging multiple measurements. ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading